Losing - Tenth Avenue North
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Fed Up With EU, Erdogan Says Turkey Could Join Shanghai Bloc
(Reuters) President Tayyip Erdogan was quoted on Sunday as saying that Turkey did not need to join the European Union “at all costs” and could instead become part of a security bloc dominated by China, Russia and Central Asian nations.
Dennis Edwards: I have shared with you what Bible prophecy predicts in previous articles. If we are understanding the prophecies correctly, Turkey will eventually make an alliance with Russia and Iran. In the last of days, they will attempt an invasion of Israel which will culminate in the Battle of Armageddon.
The immigration problem in Europe caused by the war in the Middle East has had repercussions. Europe is not so pleased to open the door to Turkey as a European member because of that problem. We have seen the Turkish leadership making these overtures toward Russia already immediately after the attempted coup. We should expect to see Turkey continue to move in that direction.
Knowing Bible prophecy does in fact help us to understand what is happening currently and how things will move in the future, if we are understanding the prophecies correctly.
An Embassy in Jerusalem? Trump Promises, but So Did Predecessors
JERUSALEM–America’s top diplomat in Jerusalem lives in an elegant three-story stone house first built by a German Lutheran missionary in 1868, a short walk from the historic Old City. But he is not an ambassador and the mission is a consulate, not an embassy.
For decades, those distinctions have rankled many Israeli Jews. The United States, along with the rest of the world, has kept its primary diplomatic footprint not in Israel’s self-declared capital, Jerusalem, but in the commercial and cultural hub of Tel Aviv to avoid seeming to take sides in the fraught and never-ending argument over who really has the right to control this ancient city.
Until now. Maybe.
President-elect Donald J. Trump vowed during his campaign that he would relocate the mission “fairly quickly” after taking office. That in itself is nothing new: For years, candidates running for president have promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and for years, candidates who actually became president have opted against doing so.But just as Mr. Trump broke all the rules of campaigning, some of his supporters say no amount of hand-wringing by the State Department will change his mind. Jason Greenblatt, an Orthodox lawyer who is advising Mr. Trump on Israel, told Army Radio after the election that the president-elect was “going to do it” because he was “a man who keeps his word.”
Already, many Israelis and Palestinians are buzzing about the prospect. Where would the embassy go? Would it straddle the line between West Jerusalem, which is predominantly Jewish, and East Jerusalem, which is predominantly Arab? Would it touch off street protests in Palestinian cities or a backlash among Arab allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
“Jerusalem is a symbolic, emotional and real issue,” said Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and president of the Israel Institute. “It matters to many Israeli Jews because it would indicate that the United States actually recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which now it effectively does not.”
Which is why Arabs object so strenuously to such a move. “This is a sign that he’s going to side with Israel,” said Mustafa Alani, a scholar at the Gulf Research Center, a research organization with offices in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. “If he does it, it’s going to be a wrong start for his relationship with the Arab world.”
The status of Jerusalem has always been one of the thorniest issues dividing Jews and Arabs. In 1947, the United Nations recommended that the city be declared a “corpus separatum,” meaning an international city, rather than incorporated into either the Arab or the Jewish states then being contemplated on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But in the war that followed its declaration of statehood in 1948, Israel captured the western portion of the city while Jordan seized the east.
Israel took control of East Jerusalem in its 1967 war with its Arab neighbors and annexed it, declaring that the city would remain whole and unified as its eternal capital (and later building many settlements there that most of the world considers illegal). The United States and most other countries refused to recognize the annexation and kept their embassies in or near Tel Aviv. The last two countries with embassies in Jerusalem, Costa Rica and El Salvador, moved out a decade ago.
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both promised during their presidential campaigns to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Both later backed away from those promises, convinced by Middle East experts that doing so would prejudge negotiations for a final settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.
In 1995, Congress passed a law declaring Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital and requiring the embassy be moved there by 1999–or else the State Department building budget would be cut in half. But the law included a provision allowing presidents to waive its requirement for six months if they determined it was in the national interest. So every six months, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush and eventually President Obama signed such waivers, fearing a violent response in the Arab world if the embassy moved.
“Every president who reversed his campaign promise did so because he decided not to take the risk,” said Dennis B. Ross, a longtime Middle East envoy who advised multiple presidents, including Mr. Obama. “Jerusalem has historically been an issue that provoked great passions–often as a result of false claims–that did trigger violence.”
Whether such advice might sway Mr. Trump is unclear. Despite Mr. Greenblatt’s declaration, another Trump adviser on the Middle East, Walid Phares, told the BBC that Mr. Trump would move the embassy “under consensus.” He later clarified that he meant a “consensus at home,” since no one could imagine a consensus including Arabs at this point.
The issue remains so delicate that the Obama administration went all the way to the Supreme Court to block a law passed by Congress allowing American parents of children born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their birthplace on their passports.
When Mr. Obama came to Jerusalem in September for the funeral of Shimon Peres, the former Israeli president and prime minister, the White House initially released a transcript of his eulogy that listed “Jerusalem, Israel” as the location of his remarks. A few hours later, it issued a “corrected” transcript that literally crossed out the word “Israel.”
The consulate currently in Jerusalem, run by the consul general, Donald Blome, a career diplomat, deals mainly with the Palestinians while the embassy in Tel Aviv, run by Ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro, an Obama appointee, handles relations with Israel. Mr. Trump could simply declare the consulate to be an embassy and move the ambassador’s home as a stopgap, but there are other logistical challenges.
The embassy’s 800-person staff could not fit in the consular offices near the Old City, nor in the large, fortresslike building that processes visa requests and is surrounded by stone walls and tall metal fences along the line that divides Jerusalem between Jewish and Palestinian residents.
Israeli Jews cite a long history in Jerusalem dating back thousands of years, and even many on the left who support a Palestinian state think the embassy should be housed there. Gilead Sher, who worked as a peace negotiator for Labor Party leaders, said, “It seems abnormal that the city, which is home to all of Israel’s governmental, legislative, judicial and national institutions, does not host foreign embassies.”
But Oded Eran, a retired Israeli diplomat now at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, noted that Israel has not invested “much political capital” in the matter because of “a sober assessment that few, if any, will move their embassy to Jerusalem.”
Indeed, with other perhaps more urgent priorities, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have made little comment on the possibility since Mr. Trump’s election. “That has been a constant commitment by many administrations, and one would expect it will be acted on at the right time,” said Dore Gold, a longtime adviser to Mr. Netanyahu who just stepped down as director general of the Foreign Ministry.
Palestinian officials presume Mr. Trump ultimately will follow the course that his predecessors did and leave the issue to final-status negotiations.
“I don’t think he’ll move the embassy, and I don’t think he’ll legalize settlements,” said Saeb Erekat, secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization. “I’m confident we’ll work with President-elect Trump and his administration to achieve peace and to achieve the two-state solution.”
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Chemical Weapons Dumped in the Ocean Could Threaten Waters Worldwide
By Andrew Curry, Hakai Magazine, November 11, 2016
Just before 10:10 on a warm summer night in 1917, German soldiers loaded a new type of armament into their artillery and began bombarding enemy lines near Ypres in Belgium. The shells, each emblazoned with a bright yellow cross, made a strange sound as their contents partly vaporized and showered an oily liquid over the Allied trenches.
The fluid smelled like mustard plants, and at first it seemed to have little effect. But it soaked through the soldiers’ uniforms, and eventually it began burning the men’s skin and inflaming their eyes. Within an hour or so, blinded soldiers had to be led off the field toward the casualty clearing stations. Lying in cots, the injured men groaned as blisters formed on their genitals and under their arms; some could barely breathe.
The mysterious shells contained sulfur mustard, a liquid chemical-warfare agent commonly–and confusingly–known as mustard gas. The German attack at Ypres was the first to deploy sulfur mustard, but it was certainly not the last: Nearly 90,000 soldiers in all were killed in sulfur mustard attacks during the First World War. And although the Geneva Convention banned chemical weapons in 1925, armies continued manufacturing sulfur mustard and other similar armaments throughout the Second World War.
When peace finally arrived in 1945, the world’s military forces had a major problem on their hands: Scientists did not know how to destroy the massive arsenals of chemical weapons. In the end, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States largely opted for what seemed the safest and cheapest method of disposal at the time: Dumping chemical weapons directly into the ocean. Troops loaded entire ships with metric tons of chemical munitions–sometimes encased in bombs or artillery shells, sometimes poured into barrels or other containers. Then they shoved the containers overboard or scuttled the vessels at sea, leaving spotty or inaccurate records of the locations and amounts dumped.
Today, scientists are looking for signs of environmental damage, as the bombs rust away on the seafloor and potentially leak their deadly payloads. And as the world’s fishing vessels trawl for deep-diving cod and corporations drill for oil and gas beneath the ocean floor and install wind turbines on the surface, the scientific quest to locate and deal with these chemical weapons has become a race against the clock.
As we chat, the soft-spoken researcher explains that he started working on Second World War sulfur mustard after a major incident nearly 20 years ago. In January 1997, a 95-metric-ton fishing vessel named WLA 206 was trawling off the Polish coast, when the crew found an odd object in their nets. It was a five- to seven-kilogram chunk of what looked like yellowish clay. The crew pulled it out, handled it, and set it aside as they processed their catch. When they returned to port, they tossed it in a dockside trash can.
The next day, crew members began experiencing agonizing symptoms. All sustained serious burns and four men were eventually hospitalized with red, burning skin and blisters. The doctors alerted the authorities, and investigators took samples from the contaminated boat to identify the substance and then traced the lump to the city dump. They shut down the area until military experts could chemically neutralize the object–a chunk of Second World War sulfur mustard, frozen solid by the low temperatures on the seafloor and preserved by the below-zero winter temperatures onshore.
A chemist in Popiel’s lab discovered firsthand how painful such a burn could be, after a fume hood pulled vapors from a test tube full of the stuff up over his unprotected hand. The gas burned part of his index finger, and it took two months to heal–even with state-of-the-art medical care. The pain was so severe that the chemist sometimes couldn’t sleep more than a few hours at a time during the first month.
But it seemed to remain strangely stable underwater, even after the metal casing of the bombs corroded. Why? To gather clues, Popiel and a small group of colleagues began testing the WLA 206 sample to identify as many of its chemical constituents as they could. The findings were very revealing. Military scientists had weaponized some stocks of sulfur mustard by adding arsenic oil and other chemicals. The additives made it stickier, more stable, and less likely to freeze on the battlefield. In addition, the team identified more than 50 different “degradation products” that formed when the chemical weapon agent interacted with seawater, sediments and metal from the bomb casings.
All this led to something that no one had predicted. On the seafloor, sulfur mustard coagulated into lumps and was shielded by a waterproof layer of chemical byproducts. These byproducts “form a type of skin,” says Popiel, and in deep water, where temperatures are low and where there are few strong currents to help break down the degradation products, this membrane can remain intact for decades or longer. Such preservation in the deep sea had one possible upside: The coating could keep weaponized sulfur mustard stable, preventing it from contaminating the environment all at once.
Some of the world’s militaries did dump their chemical weapons in deep water. After 1945, the U.S. military required that dump sites be at least 1,800 meters below the surface. But not all governments followed suit: The Soviet military, for example, unloaded an estimated 15,000 tonnes of chemical weapons in the Baltic Sea, where the deepest spot is just 459 meters down and the seafloor is less than 150 meters deep in most places–a recipe for disaster.
On one side, he says, are environmental scientists who dismiss the risk altogether, saying that there’s no evidence the weapons are affecting fish populations in a meaningful way. On the other are advocates concerned that tens of thousands of uncharted bombs are on the verge of rusting out simultaneously. “We have the ‘time bomb and catastrophe’ approach versus the ‘unicorns and rainbows’ approach,” Beldowski says. “It’s really interesting at project meetings when you have the two sides fighting.”
Hans Sanderson, an environmental chemist and toxicologist based at the Aarhus University in Denmark, thinks it would be irresponsible to hit the panic button until more is known about these munitions on the seafloor and their effects. “There are still lots of questions about the environmental impact,” the Danish researcher says. “It’s difficult to do risk assessment if you don’t know the toxicity, and these are unknown chemicals that nobody’s ever encountered or tested.”
What is certain, however, is that the chemical weapons lying on the seafloor pose a serious threat to humans who come in direct contact with them. And as the world focuses more on the oceans as a source of energy and food, the danger presented by underwater munitions to unsuspecting workers and fishing crews is growing. “When you invest more in the offshore economy, each day the risk of finding chemical munitions increases,” Beldowski says.
“Global collaboration made the study of other contaminants meaningful,” Beldowski says. “With chemical munitions, we’re in the same place marine pollution science was in the 1950s. We can’t see all the implications or follow all the paths yet.”
Dennis Edwards: The Bible tells us in the book of Revelation that ultimately Jesus comes back to save the world from total destruction. At the Battle of Armageddon Jesus will return to "destroy them which destroy the earth." The governments of man led by man's desire for power and greed have led us to the threshold of self annihilation. That's why global government will seem like a good solution. The Bible tells us all the world will admire the new One World leader who recovers from a seeming assassination attempt. But this leader will lead the world into the worst period of religious persecution and slaughter that mankind has ever witnessed which Jesus Himself called the Great Tribulation. We are moving in the direction predicted by the prophets, as man continues on his path of rejecting God's guiding principles laid out in His Word. We will reap what we have sowed.
Friday, November 18, 2016
Windmills or Reactor Cores? Inside South Africa’s Energy Clash
UPINGTON, South Africa–In one of the most sun-drenched corners of the planet, a 670-foot tower rises above a desert dotted with 4,160 mirrors. Tracking the sun throughout the day, the mirrors, called heliostats, redirect the sun’s rays into the tower, where water is heated to generate steam–and electricity.
Since the plant, Khi Solar One, began operating early this year near Upington, it has produced enough power for 65,000 homes during the day, but also, thanks to the latest technology, for a few hours after the sun sets.
South Africa is experiencing a boom in renewable energy, nonexistent here just a few years ago. Now, dozens of solar plants clustered in the country’s northern reaches and wind farms operating along the southern coast are generating 2.2 gigawatts–more than what most African nations can produce.
As the facilities have increased production, they have helped stop the blackouts that plagued South Africa until a year ago. In a country still dependent on coal, the renewable energy industry has been lauded by many energy experts and environmentalists as a model for developing nations.
As the facilities have increased production, they have helped stop the blackouts that plagued South Africa until a year ago. In a country still dependent on coal, the renewable energy industry has been lauded by many energy experts and environmentalists as a model for developing nations.
But South Africa’s utility, Eskom, and some government officials do not see it that way. Criticizing wind and solar energy as costly and unreliable, they are pressing instead for a huge investment in nuclear energy: three power stations with a total of up to nine reactors to generate 9.6 gigawatts.
The battle over South Africa’s energy future has become increasingly fierce, often fought over kilowatts and other technical details, sometimes waged with bitter personal attacks between functionaries and electrical engineers. It is also being fought on South Africa’s larger political landscape, with forces seemingly close to the scandal-ridden administration of President Jacob Zuma pushing hardest for the nuclear deal while others support an expansion of renewables. (Dennis: The big energy companies want to control electricity and therefore must find a way for big government to help them along. It's called bribes. Then big government passes laws making it impossible or extremely difficult or expensive to have free renewable energy. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.)
Developing nations are closely watching the standoff between nuclear and renewables, two forms of low-carbon energy that they hope will power their growing economies. Countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Belarus, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam are adopting nuclear power.
(Dennis: The above picture of Saharawi refugees using solar panels for electricity in the camps in southern Algeria. They use the panels to charge electric car batteries and run their few appliances off them. Science could give us renewable energy for free for much of mankind. But Big Business and Big Governments want to keep things under control. In Portugal where they have two days of sun for every day of rain, solar panels are very expensive to put in and operate. In southern Algeria I bought a small solar panel for a Saharawi refugee for 150 euros. That's all he needed for his few electrical appliances.)
In Africa, many countries are looking at solar and wind as a quick way to bolster generation capacity by leapfrogging older and dirtier sources of energy. Renewable energy could also bring diversification to nations dangerously dependent on a single source of electricity, like Malawi and Zambia, which have experienced crippling blackouts because of a severe drought that lowered water levels at hydroelectric dams.
As sub-Saharan Africa’s most advanced economy, South Africa has about half of the continent’s power-generating capacity. It has operated a nuclear power station, the only one on the continent, since 1984, though coal-fired power plants generate about 80 percent of its electricity.
Because of poor planning, the blackouts began in 2008. In 2011, desperate for more juice, the country started a program to attract private solar and wind producers that bid against one another on a number of projects.
By this June, the renewable program had attracted 102 projects worth $14.4 billion. Forty-four facilities, built on average in less than two years, are producing 2.2 gigawatts. By contrast, the construction of two huge government coal plants is facing years of delay and severe cost overruns.
“The program has been very successful, clear of any corruption and very well run,” said Wikus van Niekerk, the director of the Center for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies at Stellenbosch University. “It’s been seen by many people in the rest of the world as one of the most successful procurement programs for renewable energy. It’s something that the South African government and public should be proud about.”
“South Africa is one of the best places in the world for solar power,” said José David Cayuela Olivencia, the general manager of Khi Solar One.
Concentrated solar power can generate electricity at peak times of the day after the sun sets–but at a cost. The electricity produced by Khi Solar One, which Eskom must buy as part of a 20-year contract, is significantly costlier than regular solar power.
Eskom officials say the supply from traditional solar and wind power plants fluctuates or comes during the day, when it is not needed.
At 7 p.m., when demand peaks, “the wind may not be moving, and the sun has set,” said Brian Molefe, Eskom’s chief executive. He added that further expansion of renewable energy should “go slow” until cheap and efficient storage technology for renewables is developed.
As South Africa weans itself off coal over the coming decades, in part to comply with the Paris agreement to mitigate climate change, Eskom officials argue that only an expansion of nuclear power will meet the country’s energy needs.
But others say that building nuclear reactors, with a life span of 60 to 80 years, would commit South Africa to an energy source just as renewables are getting cheaper. In the past five years, production costs for solar and wind have dropped so much that the most recently approved plants, now under construction, will generate electricity at the cheapest rate in South Africa. Over the coming decades, critics of the nuclear project argue, advances in storage and other technologies will emerge even as South Africa is saddled with nuclear power.
Massive nuclear plants will become outdated as national electrical grids are decentralized, critics say. Businesses in South African cities are increasingly installing solar panels, effectively going off the grid. Elsewhere in Africa, it is becoming more and more common to see villagers connecting cellphones to single solar panels outside mud-brick homes.
“The concept of baseload is actually an outdated concept,” said Harald Winkler, the director of the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town. “Eskom was built around big coal and to a lesser extent big nuclear–big chunks of baseload power. It’s really myopic in terms of where the future of the grid is going to go. We’re going to see in South Africa and the rest of the world much more decentralized grids.”
As sub-Saharan Africa’s most advanced economy, South Africa has about half of the continent’s power-generating capacity. It has operated a nuclear power station, the only one on the continent, since 1984, though coal-fired power plants generate about 80 percent of its electricity.
Because of poor planning, the blackouts began in 2008. In 2011, desperate for more juice, the country started a program to attract private solar and wind producers that bid against one another on a number of projects.
By this June, the renewable program had attracted 102 projects worth $14.4 billion. Forty-four facilities, built on average in less than two years, are producing 2.2 gigawatts. By contrast, the construction of two huge government coal plants is facing years of delay and severe cost overruns.
“The program has been very successful, clear of any corruption and very well run,” said Wikus van Niekerk, the director of the Center for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies at Stellenbosch University. “It’s been seen by many people in the rest of the world as one of the most successful procurement programs for renewable energy. It’s something that the South African government and public should be proud about.”
“South Africa is one of the best places in the world for solar power,” said José David Cayuela Olivencia, the general manager of Khi Solar One.
Concentrated solar power can generate electricity at peak times of the day after the sun sets–but at a cost. The electricity produced by Khi Solar One, which Eskom must buy as part of a 20-year contract, is significantly costlier than regular solar power.
Eskom officials say the supply from traditional solar and wind power plants fluctuates or comes during the day, when it is not needed.
At 7 p.m., when demand peaks, “the wind may not be moving, and the sun has set,” said Brian Molefe, Eskom’s chief executive. He added that further expansion of renewable energy should “go slow” until cheap and efficient storage technology for renewables is developed.
As South Africa weans itself off coal over the coming decades, in part to comply with the Paris agreement to mitigate climate change, Eskom officials argue that only an expansion of nuclear power will meet the country’s energy needs.
But others say that building nuclear reactors, with a life span of 60 to 80 years, would commit South Africa to an energy source just as renewables are getting cheaper. In the past five years, production costs for solar and wind have dropped so much that the most recently approved plants, now under construction, will generate electricity at the cheapest rate in South Africa. Over the coming decades, critics of the nuclear project argue, advances in storage and other technologies will emerge even as South Africa is saddled with nuclear power.
Massive nuclear plants will become outdated as national electrical grids are decentralized, critics say. Businesses in South African cities are increasingly installing solar panels, effectively going off the grid. Elsewhere in Africa, it is becoming more and more common to see villagers connecting cellphones to single solar panels outside mud-brick homes.
“The concept of baseload is actually an outdated concept,” said Harald Winkler, the director of the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town. “Eskom was built around big coal and to a lesser extent big nuclear–big chunks of baseload power. It’s really myopic in terms of where the future of the grid is going to go. We’re going to see in South Africa and the rest of the world much more decentralized grids.”
Does a Change in the President Really Change Things?
By Dennis Edwards
To understand why a change in President doesn't seem to change things very much, we need to understand the Bilderberger Group and the Council on Foreign Relations and how they make and control what we often refer to as "the System."
For a good understanding of these diabolic forces working behind the scenes to implement a One World Government under their control, the following two books are essential to your reading.
The first book is by Daniel Estulin a descendant from a former KGB chief and a Canadian. He's a social liberal and not religious.
His book is called The True Story of the Bildberberg Group and is found at the following link:
The second book is written by James Perloff who has also written an Amazon best-seller creation book,
Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism.
You can watch him talk about Darwin and evolution at the following link.
James is a Christian, a former JFK supporter from Massachusetts, and a contributing author to various conservative magazines and publishing houses.
So here we have two books. One author from the left, the other author from the right, both coming to the same conclusions.
If you take time to read these two books, you will never look at the American elections, nor any elections in the same light.
In the Bible we are told that the Devil has power in this world. Quoting from Luke we read,
And the devil, taking him (Jesus) up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.[1]
Apostle Paul tells us:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.[2]
In Revelation we read that the Devil casts out a flood of lies against the true believers, the church, to try to destroy their faith.
And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.[3]
Don't be carried away with the flood of lies that is inundating us daily through the press, the media, films, music, etc. Get your Bible out. read and pray and ask God to open your eyes to His truth. Jesus said,
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.[4]
The New Testament is the very best book that ever was or ever will be known in the world, because it teaches you the best lessons by which any human creature, who tries to be truthful and faithful to duty, can possibly be guided.[5]
Have you read the New Testament recently? Have you ever read the New Testament?
John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the USA, said the following about Bible reading.
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.[7]
Please get your Bible out and read. Let God talk to you and strengthen you through it!
[1] Luke 4:5-7
The Bible is the book of all others to read, at all ages, in all conditions of human life; not to be read once or twice or thrice through and then laid aside, but to be read in small portions every day.[6]
Reading and knowing God's Word not only gives you strength, encouragement and guidance, but helps you discern the signs of the times,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.[7]
Please get your Bible out and read. Let God talk to you and strengthen you through it!
[1] Luke 4:5-7
[2] Ephesians 6:12
[3] Revelation 12:15
[4] John 8:31-32
